Construction of A Creative Instructional Design Model Using Blended, Project-Based Learning for College Students

doi:10.4236/ce.2012.37187

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Creative Education

2012. Vol.3, No.7, 1281-1290

Published Online November 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.37187

Construction of a Creative Instructional Design Model Using

Blended, Project-Based Learning for College Students

Shi-Jer Lou1, Chih-C hao Chung2, Wei-Yuan Dzan3, Ru-Chu Shih4*

1Graduate Institute of Vocational and Technological Education, National Pingtung

University of Science and Technology, Pingtung, Taiwan

2Department of Industrial Technology Education, National K a o hs i u ng No rmal University,

Kaohsiung, Taiwan

3Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, National Kaohsiung Marine University,

Kaohsiung, Taiwan

4Department of Modern Languages, National Pi ngtung University of Science and Techno logy,

Pingtung, Taiwan

Email: *vincent@npust.edu.tw

Received August 4th, 2012; revised September 6th, 2012; accepted September 20th, 2012

The purpose of this study was to construct a blended, project-based learning creative instructional design

model for university students that responds to the demands of the digital age, enhances student learning

achievements in creativity, and cultivates student creative ability in independent thinking and innovation.

This study organizes and analyzes blended learning, project-based learning, and the literature on creativity

to summarize creative instructional design indicators for blended project-based learning, and it uses the

fuzzy Delphi method for expert questionnaire analysis to filter the indicators most suited to university

students. This study proposes that the four dimensions of creative instructional design are the following: 1)

creative character traits; 2) ability in the creative process; 3) innovative product design, and 4) an instruc-

tional environment for creativity, with a total of 23 design indicators. Based on the results of the expert

questionnaire analysis and evaluation mechanisms, the levels of importance and primary consideration

indicators of the design indicators are established. The results show that incorporation of creative instruc-

tional design in blended, project-based learning can sufficiently cover the content of the four dimensions

of creativity and that this approach gains the approval of most experts. This instructional design model

can be used as an indicator for creativity learning effect assessment of university students, as a basis for

creative instructional design by teachers, and as a reference for creativity curricular planning in university

engineering colleges. This model can effectively enhance student creativity learning effects and, in turn,

achieve the objective of an overall elevation of national competitiveness.

Keywords: Creative Instructional Design; Blended Learning; Project-Based Learning; Fuzzy Delphi

Method

Research Background

Creativity is one of the key items for the elevation of interna-

tional competitiveness (Labuske & Streb, 2008). In the “2010-

2011 Global Competitiveness Report,” the World Economic

Forum (WEF) ranked Taiwan’s competitiveness as 13th in the

world in 2010 (Sala-i-Martin, Blanke, Hanouz, Geiger, & Mia,

2010). This ranking shows that economic development in Tai-

wan has advanced to an innovation-centered period, causing

Taiwan to receive higher assessment in the innovative factors

indicator. Thus, the education and promotion of creativity in

university technological education is a significant issue. How-

ever, Wu (2002) found that, when schools arrange for the

transmission of knowledge about creativity, they generally

convey such course content as “knowledge”, and generally do

not allow students to personally experience the creative process

and discovery (Wu, 2002). If students can actually experience

and sense creativity, it would provide a key to inspiring per-

sonal creativity. Treffinger et al. (1980) argued that creativity

could be enhanced through actual activities of creative thinking

and actions (Treffinger, County, Gifted, & Talented, 1980); if

creative thinking capabilities could be incorporated into courses,

students could form and develop creative ideas and increase

their imagination, allowing them to see problems from other

perspectives and to cultivate problem-solving ability (Maisuria,

2005). Project-based learning (PBL) advocates for the creation

of a learning context in which students can actively participate

and discuss, and it suggests the use of these contexts to inspire

student learning interests (Polman, 1998), using driving ques-

tions to elicit various learning activities. The problems posed

by the projects are challenging, and in the learning process,

students must propose and define questions, collect data, coop-

erate in learning, and create concrete achievements, all of

which inspire their creative thinking abilities. In addition, using

diverse instructional strategies has been proven to cultivate

student creativity (Michaela, 2001). With the development of

digital technology, instructional strategies and tools have chan-

ged, and creativity instruction must evolve with them. Among

these strategies, the instructional application of blended learn-

ing has received more attention. Because blended learning

combines online and face-to-face learning, it breaks through the

constraints of time and space, covering both face-to-face and

*Corresponding autho r.

S.-J. LOU ET AL.

collaborative learning and effectively realizing the advantages

of online learning (Akkoyunlu & Yılmaz-Soylu, 2008). If it can

be applied to creativity instruction, it should be quite feasible

and worthy of exploration.

To summarize, the importance of creativity and creativity in-

struction are known. This study hopes to incorporate the ad-

vantages of digital technology into blended, project-based lear-

ning in creative instructional design to effectively enhance stu-

dent learning effects in creativity. Accordingly, this study has

four research purposes:

1) Develop the dimensions and indicators for creativity as-

sessment;

2) Explore the integration of blended, project-based learning

and creative instruction;

3) Establish the design indicators for blended, project-based

learning and creative instruction;

4) Construct a design model for blended, project-based learn-

ing and creative instruction.

Literature Review

The purpose of this study is to construct a blended project-

based learning creative instructional design model (henceforth

BPBLCID); thus, the literature on creativity assessment, blend-

ed learning, project-based learning, and creativity instruction

are organized and summarized as follows:

Creativity Assessment

Early creativity research tended to explore the correlation

between personal factors and creative behavior (Barron & Har-

ringtion, 1981). After Rhodes (1961) summarized the literature

defining creativity, he proposed the “4 ‘P’s of creativity,”

which are: 1) Person; 2) Process; 3) Products; and 4) the Place

or Press (Rhodes, 1961). This set of criteria means that the

development of creativity should occur within a supportive en-

vironment, using educational processes and methods to culti-

vate student character traits, and in turn it should produce crea-

tive products. In the 1980s, creativity research turned to the

exploration of external factors, such as using social influence

processes to understand the expression of creativity (Amabile,

1996). Simonton (1988) proposed the “6 ‘P’s” theory, which

proposes that creativity is the interaction between the psycho-

logical processes of the creator’s character traits and the prod-

uct environment for creativity, occurring under an appropriate

degree of pressure to produce persuasive creative expressions

(Simonton, 1988). Gowan (1972) indicated that creativity is a

continuous process from cognition and rationality to the illu-

sory and irrational and should be viewed with an integrative at-

titude (Gowan, 1972).

This study uses the 6 Ps as the primary framework. However,

because the subjects of creative instructional design are univer-

sity students, “press” is thought to originate in the imposition of

the instructional environment, so both parameters are classified

as the same time. In addition, it is thought that students’ crea-

tive products should emphasize expression of their creative

abilities and should not be judged as merchandise. The BPB-

LCID includes 1) creativity character traits; 2) ability in the

creative process; 3) innovative design of products, and 4) in-

structional environment for creativity. We will henceforth refer

to this framework for creativity as “the 4 Ps”. Based on this

framework, complete BPBLCID design indicators are summa-

rized to enhance student learning effects in creativity. These

indicators are explained below.

Creativity Character Trait

Creativeness is an inclination of self-actualization and poten-

tial development (Rogers, 1959). The character inclinations of

creative behavior include adventurousness, accepting of chal-

lenge, curiosity, imagination, and independent autonomy. Bar-

ron and Harrington (1981) suggested that the traits of a creator

include autonomy, self-confidence, and tolerance of differences

between oneself and others (Barron & Harringtion, 1981). Lu-

bart and Sternberg (1995) argued that people with high creativ-

ity show perseverance when encountering obstacles, are willing

to take reasonable risks, are willing to grow, can tolerate un-

clear situations, can accept new experiences, and have self-

confidence (Lubart & Sternberg, 1995).

This study suggests that human values play an important role.

When an individual emphasizes new concepts, he would ex-

press better creativity. Furthermore, creators must be adventur-

ous and possess independent determination, their own views, a

personal style, high confidence, and perseverance. Thus, this

study summarizes the indicators of creativity character traits as

follows: 1) accepting of independent challenge; 2) proactivity;

3) originality; 4) high capability; 5) imagination; 6) seeking

knowledge; 7) adaptability; and 8) associative ability. We used

these indicators to develop the questionnaire to investigate the

concrete actions to be taken to cultivate the creativity character

trait in students.

Abilities in the Creative Process

Creation is the process of using creative thinking to solve

problems (Dewey, 1906). Wallas (1926) suggested that the

psychological process of creativity is divided into the prepara-

tion stage, the incubation stage, the clarification stage, and the

verification stage (Wallas, 1926). Thus, creative thinking is a

series of processes, including perceiving the problem, making

guesses and hypotheses about the problem, seeking answers,

proposing proof, and finally reporting the results. Treffinger,

Isaksen and Stead-Dorvad (2005) proposed that, to resolve

creative problems, one must first create opportunities, explore

facts, construct questions, develop resolutions, and establish

acceptance (Treffinger, Isaksen, & Stead-Dorval, 2005).

This study proposes that creation consists of the formation of

new hypotheses, followed by the modification or re-evaluation

of these hypotheses to solve problems. The ability to resolve

unknown questions is creativity. Thus, this study summarizes

the creative process indicators as follows: 1) the preparation

stage; 2) the incubation stage; 3) the clarification stage; and 4)

the verification stage. We used these indicators to develop the

questionnaire to investigate the concrete actions to be taken to

enhance student abilities in the creative process.

Innovative Design of Products

The results of creation must have uniqueness, quality, and

value (Gilchrist, 1972). Mayer (1999) suggested that there are

two characteristics in creative works: originality and usefulness

(Mayer, 1999). Thus, the created products should have original-

ity and clear objectives, while complementing and not causing

conflict with the objectives and needs of others (Gruber, 1988).

This study suggests that the innovative design of products by

students must conform to the demands of the topic, have value,

and apply new concepts to design unique products. Thus, this

1282

S.-J. LOU ET AL.

study summarizes the indicators of innovative design of prod-

ucts as follows: 1) originality; 2) adaptability; and 3) efficacy.

These indicators are used to develop a questionnaire to ascer-

tain concrete directions for innovative product design by stu-

dents.

Instructional Environment for Creativity

Csikszentmihalyi (1975) claimed that environment has a de-

termining effect on creativity (Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszent-

mihalyi, 1975). Many studies have also noted that it is benefi-

cial to encourage an environment that focuses on creativity

(Amabile, 1996; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). Cropley and Fleith

proposed that it is beneficial to the cultivation of creative

thinking by students to encourage creative thought and explora-

tion in a learning environment (Cropley, 1997; Fleith, 2000).

This study focuses on the academic learning environment for

students, including the instructional methods provided by tea-

chers, the learning atmosphere created, and cooperative learn-

ing among peers. In light of this focus, the study refers to the

views and literature by Cropley, summarizing the indicators for

instructional environment for creativity as follows: 1) inde-

pendence; 2) cooperative discussion; 3) asking questions; 4)

flexible and open; 5) reward support; 6) assessment; 7) reflec-

tion on challenges; and 8) interest and motivation. These indi-

cators are used to develop a questionnaire to elicit the key

points for the creation of an instructional environment for crea-

tivity for students.

Blended Learning

Blended learning refers to the mixing of two or more types of

learning method or media tool. Blended learning combines

face-to-face instruction and online learning systems to seek the

optimal effects between the two as well as the most balanced

combination (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003). Thus, blended

learning can effectively integrate different conveyance models,

instructional models, and learning methods (Procter, 2003).

Osguthorpe and Graham (2003) argued that blended learning

environments can enrich education, store knowledge, act as a

personal proxy, save costs, and be easily modified (Osguthorpe

& Graham, 2003). Mortera-Gutierrez (2006) suggested that, in

the blended learning context, the combination of traditional in-

struction with information technology can create infinite possi-

bilities in education and reflect the richness of education (Mor-

tera-Gutiérrez, 2006).

This study uses blended learning to integrate different in-

structional methods and media, combining online learning and

face-to-face instruction to cope with individual differences

among students. The goal of this application is to create the

most suitable instructional strategies, learning environments,

and tools to conduct creativity instruction, so that students can

engage in efficient learning, in hopes of elevating student learn-

ing effects in creativity.

Project-Based Learning

The primary purposes of project-based learning (PBL) are to

enable students to use what they have learned and to integrate

the theory and practices learned by students. They can then

realize their imagination and creativity, converting their know-

ledge into abilities to cope with the challenges of life and work

(Hsiao, 1997). In PBL, students face a challenging task, and

their designs, problem-solving, decision-making, and research

allow them to autonomously conduct work related to the topic

during a period of time, completing a real product (Thomas,

2000). Boaler (2002) noted that, in project-based learning, stu-

dents are more responsible for autonomous learning and learn

more than from other instructional models (Boaler, 2002).

Thus, in the design of this study, students are the guides of

their own learning. They divide work and cooperate in tasks

ranging from data collection, reading, analysis and discussion

to the production of actual innovative products. They discuss

creative ideas and use project activities to learn creativity and

enhance student learning effects in creativity.

Creativity Instructi on and Plat form Integration

Creativity is extrinsically constructed and is a process unique

to human beings in its continued construction, deconstruction,

and reconstruction of thought (Gagne, Yekovich, & Yekovich,

1997); many studies have noted that personal potential for crea-

tivity can be used to construct and develop creativity through

practice (Zimmerman, 2006). By using diverse adaptable strate-

gies, it is possible to cultivate student creativity (Michaela,

2001); these strategies include the following: 1) give students

time to think creatively; 2) reward creative ideas; 3) encourage

adventure; 4) give permission make mistakes; 5) encourage

different opinions and diversity of ideas; 6) encourage explora-

tion of the environment; 7) doubt assumptions; 8) do not criti-

cize student creativity; 9) provide an environment for coopera-

tion; 10) provide a free and open environment.

This study uses the blended creative learning platform pro-

posed by Lou et al., (Lou, Chung, Chao, Tseng, & Shih, 2012),

engaging in overall consideration of the four dimensions of this

platform to establish effective connections between creativity

learning and blended learning platform functions: developmen-

tal purpose, system design, system mechanisms, and system

support, We then use the advantages of information technology

and diverse and flexible instructional strategies to enhance stu-

dent learning in creativity.

To summarize the literature review, this study finds that most

of the literature still focuses on the individual exploration and

assessment of the 4 Ps, carrying out creativity instruction based

on those principles; however, it is insufficient to use the 4 Ps to

conduct a complete instructional design. This study suggests

that there would be interactive effects between the actual in-

structional environment, personal traits, creative processes, and

innovative design of products, resulting in complex cross-in-

fluences. To truly understand creativity and in turn design a

model for creativity instruction, these factors should not be

considered singly. Thus, the construction of a model for crea-

tivity instruction that conforms to the demands of the digital

age and that can comprehensively consider creative content’s

potential to enhance student creative ability is a very important

issue and is the purpose this study.

Research Methods

The methodology and implementation flow of this study are

explained as follows:

1) Carry out literature review of blended learning, creativity

assessment, creativity instruction, and project-based learning, to

establish the dimensions and indicators of creativity assess-

ment;

2) Explore the correlation between blended learning method

S.-J. LOU ET AL.

1284

number range, which is given three values, representing the

triangular fuzzy number of a certain linguistic variable. For

instance, (.4, .5, .6) can be used to represent the semantic value

of “slightly,” in which 0.5 is the value of maximum satisfaction

and .4 and .6 represent ranges acceptable to experts. No per-

sonal data are elicited in the questionnaire to conform to the

fuzzy Delphi method’s principle of anonymity.

and creativity instruction, conduct initial planning for the de-

sign of indicators in BPBLCID, and use this to develop an ex-

pert questionnaire on BPBLCID;

3) Use the fuzzy Delphi method for the expert questionnaire

survey;

4) Analyze and organize the results and suggestions of the

expert questionnaire surveys to ascertain BPBLCID indicators;

5) Conduct assessment of BPBLCID indicators; Research Subjects

6) Construct BPBLCID.

The planning dimensions of BPBLCID in this study are

broad, and would produce different views from different angles,

so when the subjects are selected, the consideration for select-

ing experts is based on their professional ability, their familiar-

ity with the research topic, and their level of authority. Regard-

ing expert selection, Dalkey and Helmer (1963) indicated that

the error for a population of at least 10 can be lowered to the

minimum and has the highest reliability. This study invites 10

experts for questionnaire surveys; the expert data are shown in

Table 1. Their fields of expertise are creativity assessment,

creativity instruction, innovative design of products, and blend-

ed learning, fully covering the range to be explored by this

study. Each has at least 7 years of instructional experience;

consequently, it can provide the most comprehensive and pro-

fessional suggestions for this study.

Fuzzy Delphi Method

The Fuzzy Delphi method evolved from the traditional Del-

phi method, an expert prediction method and type of group

decision-making (Noorderhaven, 1995). The traditional Delphi

method reveals the consensus value of expert opinions and is

based upon mean values. In fact, in expert consensus, there is

an unknown functional relationship. Klir and Folger (1988)

proposed the introduction of a normalized mean model into the

Delphi method, using the minimal value (a) and maximal value

(b) of the normalized means from the expert questionnaire as

the two end points of an expert consensus triangular fuzzy

function. A geometric function (m) represents the consensus of

expert groups on the influential factor. Finally, the researcher

determines the threshold value based on the research purpose to

select suitable evaluation factors. A diagrammatic representa-

tion of the method is shown in Figure 1. On the whole, com-

pared to the fuzzy Delphi method, the traditional Delphi

method has the following advantages: 1) it can save the time

and costs for investigation; 2) the individual opinions of experts

can be clearly shown without distortion; 3) the semantic struc-

ture of the prediction items can be clearly expressed; 4) it con-

siders the unavoidable fuzziness in the interview process; 5) it

possesses a facile computational process that can process multi-

level, multi-attribute, and multi-solution decision problems.

Thus, this study uses the fuzzy Delphi method to create a col-

lection of opinions and ideas and individual expert opinions,

integrating these data to obtain analytical results that conform

to the trends of the times and are close to the theme, forming

the main basis for the study in constructing a model for blended

creativity instruction.

Results and Discussion

To understand the level of importance of the indicators for

evaluation and modification of design indicators for blended

project-based learning creative instruction, the 23 indicator

results further use quartiles Q1, Q3 (which are .6657 and .7443,

respectively) to serve as the basis for delineating the level of

importance of creativity indicators. When Mean > Q3, it means

that the experts believe the indicator is “highly important”;

when Q3 > Mean > Q1, it means that the experts believe the

indicator is “important”. These two levels are considered pri-

mary indicators. When Q1 > Mean, it means that the experts

believe the indicator has “secondary importance”, and it is con-

sidered an indicator of secondary consideration.

a m b

)( xUn

meanm

functionMembershipxUn



max

min

)(

Expert Questionnaire Content

This study uses a semi-closed questionnaire to collect exper-

topinion. Experts are asked to evaluate the constructed indica-

tors of BPBLCID from their research on and experiences with

creativity and to offer their subjective value judgments in the

form of scores. In addition, the experts and scholars are permit-

ted to add indicators to address insufficiencies in the original

indicators. The evaluation scale definition of the model con-

struction indicators in the questionnaire have 0 ~ 1 as the fuzzy Figure 1.

Triangular fuzzy number diagram.

Table 1.

Background data of experts and scholars.

Item Gender Professional field Number of years in

instruction Occupation Education Age

Type Male Female

Creativity

assessment Creativity

instruction

Innovative

design of

products

Blended

learning26 - 30

years 16 - 20

years 11 - 15

years 6 - 10

years ProfessorAssociate

professor Assistant

professor Doctorate Masters 50 - 59

years

old

40 - 49

years

old

Number 6 4 7 5 4 4 1 5 3 1 3 5 2 9 1 3 7

S.-J. LOU ET AL.

Analysis of Results of Fuzzy Delphi Method Expert

Questionnaire

This study uses the fuzzy Delphi method to compute and

construct the item scores (m) and indicator means (M) for the

BPBLCID indicator items. The 4 Ps analysis results are ex-

plained below.

Analysis of the indicators for creativ i ty character traits

Table 2 shows that for creativity character traits, the “highly

important” rank indicators include five items: seeking knowl-

edge, associative, proactive, adaptable, and imaginative, with

scores of .8088, .7902, .7663, .7505 and .7476, respectively.

The “important” rank indicator is originality, with a score of

0.6829. Independent challenge and high capability are listed at

the rank of “secondary importance”, also with scores as high

as .6644 and .5537. This result suggests that most experts iden-

tify with the creativity character trait indicators summarized by

this study. The main points for integration into instructional

design include the following:

1) Encourage students to be flexible rather than rigid so that

they can flexibly cope with various situations. They should

have a high degree of tolerance for fuzzy and uncertain matters,

to break through the constraints of their thinking. Train students

to have unique insight and imagination, think from multiple

dimensions, and use new concepts to solve problems. Cultivate

students’ opinions, personal styles, and original ideas to en-

hance student ability in proposing unique and logical views. 2)

Enhance student curiosity and learning motivation, encouraging

them to actively pursue their interests to enhance acceptance for

new matters and experiences. Cultivate student ability in inte-

grating different ideas, making new connections among super-

ficially unrelated things or concepts. Guide students to set goals

for themselves in pursuit of self-affirmation and enthusiastic,

proactive attitudes, to encourage them to work hard at seeking

innovation and discoveries.

In summary, this study integrates expert opinions to ascertain

that the BPBLCID must be able to cultivate the following

character traits among university students: seeking knowledge,

associative ability, proactivity, adaptability, imagination, origi-

nality, accepting of independent challenge, and high capability.

Through the cultivation of creativity character traits, the BPB-

LCID should enhance learning effects in creativity of university

students.

Analysis of indicators for ability in the creative process

Table 3 shows that, among indicators of ability in the crea-

tive process, indicators with “important” include the verifica-

tion stage and the clarification stage, with scores of .7930

and .7260, respectively. Indicators with “secondary impor-

tance” include the incubation stage and the preparation stage,

Table 2.

Analysis of creativity character traits.

Indicator Item

Fuzzy

score (m)mean (M)Level of importanc e

Q1 = .6657

Q3 = .7443 Analytical results

Is highly curious, with strong learn ing motivation. .7986 .8088

1. Seeking knowledge Ca n actively explor e matters of interest, high ac ceptance for new

matters. .8190 highly important primary indicators

2. Associative ability Can make new connections among su p erficially unrelated ideas or

concepts. .8012 .7902highly im portant primary indicators

Has the ability to integrate different ideas. .7792

3. Proactivit y Has a high degre e of enthusiasm, strong motivation, and active

attitudes for advancement. .8190 .7663highly important primar y indicators

Can set one’s own objectiv es and pursu e self-affirmation. .7007

Have the motivation to create and work hard to seek innova tive

discoveries. .7792

4. Adaptability Can be flexible rather than rigid, can flexibly react to various

situations. .7986 .7505highly important primar y indicators

Have a high degree of tolerance for fuzzy and unc ertain matters. .6895

Can break through the constraints of their thinking and use new

concepts to solve problems. .7634

5. Imagination Thinks broadly and obse rves from different pe r sp ectives, has a high

degree of sensitivity. .7318 .7476highly important primar y indicators

Is able to produce unique insights, can propose multiple opinions. .7634

6. Originality Has individua l vi ews and pers on al style, does n ot follow precedents..6746 .6829important primary indi cators

Uses individual values and standards to evaluate matter s, has original

thoughts. .6281

Can po se unique and logical views toward dealing with problems ..7460

Can indepe ndently complete work and overcome obstacles. .6281 .6644secondary importance secondary indicators

7. Accepting of inde-

pendent challe nge Can bravel y accept new challenges. .7007

Has profess i onal knowledge, good at t hinking, can address complex

issues. .5973 .5537secondary importance secondary indicators

8. High capability Has a high degree of faith and pride in personal ability. .5101

S.-J. LOU ET AL.

Table 3.

Analysis of ability in the creative process.

Indicator Item

Fuzzy score

(m) Mean (M)Level of importance

Q1 = .6657 Q3 = .7443 Analytical results

Can implement new ideas . .7986 .7930Important

4. Verification stage Can conduct verification of the problem-solving metho d. .7818 Primary indicators

Can concre tely execute ideas, produce crea tive achievements..7986

Can provide solutions. .7986 .7260Important

3. Clarification stage Can evaluate effec tive solutions. .6863 Primary indicators

Can continuou sly modify possible solutions of a problem to

solve it. .7792

Can find the optimal sol u tion. .6398

Can think ab o ut and discover the nee ds o f a problem. .6012 .6553

2. Incubation stage Can consider p ossible solutions to problems. .6378 Secondary importance

Can seek suitable and feasible solutions to a problem. .7270

Listed as primary

indicator a fter

analysis

Can collect related data. .6520 .6360

1. Preparation stage Can integra t e related new and old knowl edge. .7294 Secondary importance

Can understand the facts of a problem. .5735

Can have s po ntaneous inspirations and ideas. .5889

Listed as primary

indicator a fter

analysis

with scores of .6553 and .6360, respectively. The scores are all

over .6360. This shows that most experts agree with the impor-

tance of indicators of ability in the creative process. The levels

of importance clearly show that experts believe that the eleva-

tion of student abilities in the verification and clarification

stages is more important than elevation of abilities in the incu-

bation and preparation stages. The main points in the design of

creative process instruction include:

1) Provide diverse channels so that students can collect data,

blending old and new knowledge as they analyze the facts of

the problem. Through platform group discussions, they can

consider possible solutions to arrive at the most suitable and

feasible ones.

2) Design practical activities for creativity, so that when stu-

dents face problems, they can propose solutions and evaluate

and modify them to find the optimal solution. They can then

implement concrete verification of solutions and execute their

ideas to create new works.

To summarize, this study integrates expert opinions to ascer-

tain that BPBLCID indicators must proceed from the initial

preparation stage, through the incubation and clarification

stages, to the verification stage with full consideration. There

should also be comprehensive design of curricular activities

that can cultivate abilities throughout the creative process based

on the indicators to enhance the creativity learning effects of

university students.

Analysis of indicators for innovative design of products

Table 4 shows that, among indicators for innovative design

of products, all have the rank of “important,” including effec-

tiveness, originality, and adaptability, with scores of .7029, .7016

and .6697, respectively. This shows that most experts agree

with the importance of indicators for innovative design of

products in this study. The main points of instructional design

include:

1) To ensure that students can consider and apply new con-

cepts from various perspectives to break through the constraints

of their thinking and can use different materials to complete

projects, expressing unique ideas and imaginative insights.

2) To guide student projects toward value and usability, as

well as conformity to topical demands, to effectively execute

tasks and solve problems.

In sum, this study integrates expert opinions to ascertain that

the BPBLCID must clearly plan the main points for innovative

design of products. This implementation allows students to

clearly understand that innovative product design must be ef-

fective, original, and adaptable. The model is designed to pro-

duce clear objectives to enhance the learning effects of creativ-

ity in university students.

Indicator analysis for instructional environment for crea-

tivity

Table 5 shows that, among indicators for instructional envi-

ronment for creativity, the indicator ranked “highly important”

is asking questions, with a score of .7460. Indicators with the

rank of “important” include six items: interest and motivation,

reward support, reflection on challenges, flexible opening, as-

sessment, and independence, with scores of .7426, .7236,

.7072, .6878, .6826 and .6669, respectively. Cooperative dis-

cussion is an indicator with “secondary importance,” scoring as

high as .6166. This result shows that most experts affirm the

instructional environment indicators selected by this study. The

main points of instructional design include the following:

1) At the platform discussion area, use diverse techniques

and methods in asking questions to guide student thinking,

encouraging students to express diverse opinions and views,

while paying attention to student problems and suggestions.

This approach creates a diverse and variable learning environ-

ment. Furthermore, identify student strengths, abilities, and

interests in the learning process and accept their thoughts and

1286

S.-J. LOU ET AL.

Table 4.

Analysis of innova t i v e d e s ig n o f p roducts.

Indicator Item

Fuzzy score

(m) Mean (M)Level of importance

Q1 = .6657 Q3 = .7443 Analytical results

Can meet the topical requirements. .8190 .7029 Important

1. Effectiveness Can e ffectively execute tasks or solve problems. .6520 Primary indicators

Has value. .6520

Has usability. .6885

2. Originality Can demonstrate uniqu e imaginat io n. .7159 .7016 Important

Is unique and lo gical. .7609 Primary indicators

Can reconnect and recombine concepts or ideas that others

cannot think of. .6281

3. Adaptability Obtains results after multidimensional thinking. .7294 .6697 Important

Can apply new concepts. .6499 Primary indicators

Can demonstrate one’s own abilities in analysis, comparison,

and determination. .6499

Can be flexible and use different m aterials for completion..7460

Can break thr ough the constraints of thinking. .5735

Table 5.

Analysis of instructional environment for creativity.

Indicator Item

Fuzzy score

(m) Mean (M) Level of importance

Q1 = .6657 Q3 = .7443

Analytical

results

Emphasize student questions and suggestions. .7460 .7460

1. Asking

questions Encourage students to express opinions and diverse viewpoints. .7460 Highly important Primary

indicato rs

Use diverse techniques and methods for asking quest i ons to lead student thinking..7460

Identify student strengths, abilities, and interests in t he process of instruction..779 2 .7426 Important

2. Interest and

motivation Encourage st udents to keep trying to discover thei r o wn interests. .7294

Primary

indicato rs

Use diverse and variable methods to form the learning envir o nment. .7634

Use various strategies and methods to elicit student learning motivation. .6984

Give praise and affirmation for students’ creative products and behaviors. .6281 .7236 Important

3. Reward

support Respect and accept student views and feelings. .7634

Primary

indicato rs

When students encounter difficultie s, offer support a nd encouragement. .7792

Give students challengi n g problem s and tasks. .7135 .7072 Important

4. Reflection on

challenges Encourage students to take reasonable risks in the creative process. .7135

primary

indicato rs

Encourage students to reflect and perceive that they are also creative in

instruction. .7294

Enhance student abilities and use this for continuous improvement and growth in

instruction. .6724

Form a free and open learning atmo sp here. .7634 .6878 Important

5. Flexibility and

openness Guide students in thinking from diverse perspec ti v es. .7318

Primary

indicato rs

Encourage students to freely ask questions, respe ct students’ individual

differences. .6281

Give studen t s the opportunity to choose and enc ou rage them to accept new

experiences. .6281

6. Assessment Conduct a ss essment using diverse evaluation methods. .6863 .6826 Important

Do not jump to conclusions about s tudent ideas. .7435

Primary

indicato rs

Expect that s t udents will evaluate themselves, and le t them underst and the

evaluation standards before evaluation. .5871

Incorporate creativity into homework assessme nt. .7135

7. Independence Encourage stude nts to learn independently and seek answers to problems or

difficulties on their own. .6895 .6669 Important

Encourage st udents to be autonomous when thinki ng about questions and not rely

on others. .6626

Primary

indicato rs

Encourage students to be fr eed from so cial constraints and to not follow ot h ers

blindly. .6485

Allow studen ts to cooperate, discuss, and share i n their learning in groups. .6378 .6166

8. Cooperative

discussion Permit students to coopera t e and jointly d i scuss in lear ning to solve problems..5954 Secondary importanceSecondary

indicato rs

S.-J. LOU ET AL.

feelings. When students encounter problems, the teacher should

give timely encouragement and support, offering praise and

affirmation for the creative products and behaviors of students.

2) Give students challenging problems and tasks so that stu-

dents can reflect and perceive that they are also creative. In the

creative process, students should be encouraged to take rea-

sonable risks. Additionally, guide them to think from a number

of different perspectives and encourage them to ask questions

freely in an open learning atmosphere. Assessment should be

conducted through diverse evaluation methods, incorporating

creativity into work assessment. Before assessment, students

should understand the standards for evaluation and they are also

expected to evaluate themselves. Encourage students to solve

problems by cooperating, discus s ing, and learning together.

In sum, this study integrates the opinions of experts and as-

certains that BPBLCID must create an environment in which

the following are encouraged: asking questions, developing

interest and motivation, rewarding support, reflecting on chal-

lenges, being flexible and open, assessing, acting independently,

and discussing cooperatively. Such an environment should

enhance the learning effects of university students in creativity.

Holistic Analysis of BPBLCID Indicators

In this study, a five-member evaluation team was formed (3

professors and 2 doctoral students) to evaluate and modify the

analytical results in 4.1 to ascertain the primary indicators and

secondary indicators. Table 6 shows that, after evaluating the

indicators for creativity character traits, 6 primary indicators

and 2 secondary indicators were established. Among the indi-

cators for the creative process, there are no indicators at the

“highly important” rank, while there are 2 at the “important”

and “secondary importance” ranks. After the analysis and dis-

cussion of this study, the indicators of ability in the creative

process appear to have temporal sequence relationships that are

continuous, with scores close to the Q1 value. Thus, after eva-

luation, these 4 indicators are listed as primary indicators. After

evaluating the indicators of innovative design of products, there

are 3 primary indicators. For indicators of an instructional en-

vironment for creativity, after evaluation, 7 are listed as pri-

mary indicators and 1 is listed as a secondary indicator.

After evaluation, the mean for the primary indicators for

creativity character trait was found to be the highest, at .7577,

followed by instructional environment for creativity, innovative

design of products, and ability in the creative process, with

means of .7081, .6914, and .6894, respectively. This result

shows that most experts believe that creativity is still produced

by the influence of character traits. Thus, experts believe that

the cultivation of creativity character traits should be the top

consideration. The second highest score was assigned to an

instructional environment for creativity, which shows that most

experts agree with the purpose of this study in constructing

BPBLCID, believing that purposeful instructional methods,

instructional atmosphere, and instructional environment can

enhance student creativity. Although the innovative design of

products and ability in the creative process received the lowest

scores, their means are still greater than .6894, which shows

that most experts agree that the process of innovative design

and production of actual products can enhance the creative

ability of students.

In sum, the BPBLCID indicators include 20 primary indica-

tors and 3 secondary indicators. The results of the mean calcu-

lations do not affect the original rankings, but they can increase

the differences among dimensions, indicating that BPBLCID

can restore expert assessment of the importance of the four

dimensions, accentuating the priority ranking among dimen-

sions. This assessment is done to ascertain the views of experts

to make the most appropriate distribution and usage of limited

instructional resources to enhance the effects of student learn-

ing on creativity. Analysis of the mean values shows that crea-

tive instructional design requires holistic consideration and

indicates that experts approve the instructional strategy of in-

corporating the 4 Ps into blended project-based learning as the

indicators for considering creative instructional design.

Blended Project-Based Learning Creativity

Instructional Design (BPBLCIDD) Model

As shown in Figure 2, the learning effects of creativity can

arise from 1) cultivation of creativity character traits; 2) abili-

ties in the creative process; 3) actual work on innovative design

of products; and 4) cultivation of an instructional environment

for creativity. Through expert questionnaire analyses in the

fuzzy Delphi method, BPBLCID indicators include 20 primary

indicators and 3 secondary indicators to fully cover the BPB-

LCID indicators and integrate the advantages of blended learn-

ing and project-based learning in the design of creativity in-

struction. With diverse blended learning, it is possible to effec-

tively integrate different instructional models and learning

methods to evince the richness of education and social interac-

tivity, which benefits the formation of an instructional envi-

ronment for creativity. In turn, this integration cultivates crea-

tivity character traits in students and elevates abilities in the

creative process. Through systematic design of question con-

texts in project-based learning, it is possible to form an open

instructional environment for problem solving and decision

making, giving students opportunities for autonomous learning

and the creation of innovative product design to strengthen their

abilities in the creative process. Through the innovative design

and manufacture of products, instruction can actively cultivate

good characteristics in the creative character of students, en-

hancing the effects of creativity instruction.

Table 6.

Chart of BPBLCID indicator analysis.

Distribution of indicators be fore evaluation Results of primary indicators a fter evaluation

Dimensions of B PBLCID indicators Highly important Im portantSecondary importan ceOverall meanNumber Mean and ranking

The creati vit y character trait 5 1 2 .7206 6 .7577 1

Ability in the creative process 0 2 2 .6895 4 .6895 4

Innovative design of products 0 3 0 .6914 3 .6914 3

Instructional environment for cr eativity1 6 1 .6967 7 .7081 2

1288

S.-J. LOU ET AL.

Product innovative

design

Creativity

character trait

Ability in the

creative pro cess

Creativity

instructional

Learning

effects in

Blended

learning

Project-based

learning

Figure 2.

Blended project-based creative learning instructional des i g n model.

Conclusion and Suggestions

The construction of blended project-based learning creative

instructional design model should conform to the demands of

the digital age. Based on the results of this study, the following

conclusions and suggestions are indicated:

Conclusion

1) BPBLCID indicators received the approval and agree-

ment of most experts

Most experts agree that BPBLCID must be able to cultivate

student characteristics—such as seeking knowledge, associative

ability, proactivity, adaptability, imagination, originality, accep-

ting of independent challenge, and high capability—to con-

struct an environment for creativity instruction that allows stu-

dents to ask questions, find interest and motivation, reward sup-

port, reflect on challenges, be flexible and open, assess them-

selves, and participate in independent and cooperative discus-

sion. From the preparation stage to the incubation stage, clari-

fication stage, and final verification stage, there is full consid-

eration and design of course activities to cultivate the abilities

students need for the creative process. These abilities allow

them to clearly understand that innovative design of products

must achieve effectiveness, originality, and adaptability and be

designed toward clear objectives to enhance the learning effects

of creativity in university students. In addition, these analytical

results can be used to understand the level of importance of the

indicators to serve as a reference for creative instructional de-

sign.

2) Evaluation mechanisms for creative instructional design

can help to ascertain primary indicators and secondary indi-

cators

The evaluation mechanisms effectively compile expert opin-

ions and address the research topic. The evaluation mechanisms

further ascertain the views of the experts. The BPBLCID indi-

cators are divided into four dimensions, which include 20 pri-

mary indicators and 3 secondary indicators, allowing this study

to make the most suitable distribution of limited instructional

resources and serve as the primary basis for reference in in-

structional design.

3) Most experts express approval for the incorporation of

blended project-based learning into creativity instruction

The overall analysis of the 4 Ps of creativity shows that crea-

tivity character traits received the highest scores, followed by

an instructional environment for creativity, innovative design of

products, and ability in the creative process. Further analysis

shows that, even though the four dimensions received different

scores, they are very close, which shows that most experts be-

lieve that all four dimensions are highly important to creativity.

Thus, in this study, the incorporation of the 4 Ps of creativity

into blended learning and project-based learning as a considera-

tion indicator and instructional strategy of creative instructional

design is feasible and necessary.

4) BPBLCID sufficiently covers the 4 Ps of creativity

Use of the diverse instructional strategies of blended learning

and actual work activities of project-based learning can cover

all of the indicators of the 4 Ps of creativity, including 1) culti-

vation of creativity character traits; 2) elevation of abilities in

the creative process; 3) practical work in innovative product

design; and 4) the formation of an instructional environment for

creativity. Effective integration of the advantages of blended

learning and project-based learning in the design of creativity

instruction can result in construction of a blended project-based

learning creative instructional design model with the 4 Ps of

creativit y as the main framework.

Suggestions

1) Using BPBLCID indicators in student self-evaluation

and elevation of creativity

BPBLCID indicators received agreement from most experts

and scholars, completing the classification of important ranks.

This result demonstrates that the instructional design indicators

summarized by this study can help to cultivate student creativ-

ity. Thus, students can use the BPBLCID indicators compiled

in this study as a basis for self-assessment to understand the

current condition, strengths, and weaknesses of their own crea-

tivity learning; they can serve as an important reference for

developing self-creativity and elevating creativity learning ef-

fects.

2) Implementing BPBLCID indicators in course instruc-

tional design relating to creativity

BPBLCID indicators can be divided into primary indicators

and secondary indicators to ascertain the priority level of in-

structional design indicators. Teachers can use the priority ran-

king of instructional design indicators to implement instruc-

tional design, to make the most appropriate distribution of lim-

ited instructional resources and to serve as the primary consid-

eration when designing courses relating to crea t ivity.

3) Promote BPBLCID in curricula relating to creativity

Using the perspective of the 4 Ps of creativity in blended

project-based learning in creative instructional design is feasi-

ble and necessary. This study shows that BPBLCID can fully

cover the four dimensions of creativity. Therefore, schools can

promote BPBLCID to develop courses relating to creativity that

fully consider the 4 Ps of creativity, providing a comprehensive

curriculum on creativity to be selected and taken by students.

REFERENCES

Akkoyunlu, B., & Yılmaz-Soylu, M. (2008). Development of a scale on

learners’ views on blended learning and its implementation process.

The Internet and Higher Education, 11, 26-32.

doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.12.006

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to “the social

S.-J. LOU ET AL.

psychology of creativity”. Boulder: Westview Press.

Barron, F., & Harringtion, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and

personality. Annual Review of Psych ology, 32, 439-476.

doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.002255

Boaler, J. (2002). Experiencing school mathematics: Traditional and

reform approaches to teaching and their impact on student learning.

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cropley, A. J. (1997). Fostering creativity in the classroom. The crea-

tivity Research Handbook, 83-114.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. (1975). Beyond boredom

and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the

Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9, 458-

467. doi:10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458

Dewey, J. (1906). The experimental theory of knowledge. Mind, 15, 293-

307. doi:10.1093/mind/XV.59.293

Fleith, D. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions of creativity in the

classroom environment. Roeper Review, 22, 148-153.

doi:10.1080/02783190009554022

Gagne, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1997). The cogni-

tive psychology of school learning. New York: Addison Wesley

Longman Inc.

Gilchrist, M. (1972). The psychology of creativity. Melbourne: Mel-

bourne University Press.

Gowan, J. C. (1972). Development of the creative individual. RR

Knapp.

Gruber, H. E. (1988). The evolving systems approach to creative work.

Creativity Research Journa l , 1, 27-51.

doi:10.1080/10400418809534285

Hsiao, H. C. (1997). The improvement of creativity and productivity of

technical workers through partnership between university and indus-

try. Paper Presented at the International Conference on Creativity

Development in Technical Edu cation and Training, Taipei.

Klir, G. J., & Folger, T. A. (1988). Fuzzy sets, uncertainty, and infor-

mation.

Labuske, K., & Streb, J. (2008). Technological creativity and cheap

labour? Explaining the growing international competitiveness of

German mechanical engineering before World War I. German Eco-

nomic Review, 9, 65-86. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0475.2008.00422.x

Lou, S. J., Chung, C. C., Chao, L. C., Tseng, K. H., & Shih, R. S.

(2012). Construction of a blended TRIZ creative learning platform.

International Jour n a l o f Engineering Education, 2 8, 37-47.

Lubart, T., & Sternberg, R. (1995). Defying the crowd. Cultivating

creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.

Maisuria, A. (2005). The turbulent times of creativity in the National

Curriculum. Policy Futures in Education, 3, 141-152.

doi:10.2304/pfie.2005.3.2.3

Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Michaela, D. (2001). Fostering creativity in business education: De-

veloping creative classroom environments to provide students with

critical workplace competencies. Journal of Education for Business,

77, 28-33. doi:10.1080/08832320109599667

Mortera-Gutiérrez, F. (2006). Faculty best practices using blended

learning in e-learning and face-to-face instruction. International Jour-

nal on E Learning, 5, 313.

Noorderhaven, N. G. (1995). Strategic decision making. Wokingham:

Addison-Wesley.

Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environ-

ments: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance

Education, 4, 227-233.

Polman, J. L. (1998). Activity structures for project-based teaching and

learning: Design and adaptation of cultural tools. Annual Meeting of

AERA, San Diego.

Procter, C. (2003). Blended learning in practice. Education in a chang-

ing environment. Salford: University of Salford.

Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan,

42, 305-310.

Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality, and interper-

sonal relationships, as developed in the client-centered framework.

Psychology: A Stud y of a Science, 3, 184-256.

Sala-i-Martin, X., Blanke, J., Hanouz, M. D., Geiger, T., & Mia, I.

(2010). The global competitiveness index 2010-2011: Looking be-

yond the global economic crisis. The Global Competitiveness Report

2010-2011.

Simonton, D. K. (1988). Age and outstanding achievement: What do

we know after a century of research? Psychological Bulletin, 104,

251. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.104.2.251

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating

creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Simon & Schuster

Inc.

Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning.

San Rafael, CA: Autodesk Foundation.

Treffinger, D. J., County, V., Gifted, N. S. L. T. I. O. T., & Talented, T.

(1980). Encouraging creative learning for the gifted and talented: A

handbook of methods and techniques. Ventura County Superinten-

dent of Schools Office.

Treffinger, D. J., Isa ksen, S. G., & Stead-Dorval, K. B. (2005). Creative

problem solving: An introduction. Prufrock Pr.

Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. London: Cape.

Wu, J. J. (2002). Enticing the crouching tiger and awakening the hidden

dragon: Recognizing and nurturing creativity in Chinese students.

Development and Practice of Creativity, Taipei.

Zimmerman, E. (2006). It takes effort and time to achieve new ways of

thinking: Creativity and art education. The International Journal of

Arts Education, 3, 74-87.

1290